Parole doesn't affect your voting rights, but many felonies will. That includes in New York. It would be part of sentencing, probably a mandatory part for certain offenses. Your voting rights are revoked before you even hit the prison gate. Only way to get them back would be to overturn the conviction through an appeal. Neither serving out your full prison term for an unconditional release nor finishing your parole period will restore voting rights once lost.
(Not stating a position for or against the above, just clarifying that parole isn't the issue for voting. Felony conviction is.)
You're only half right. The Declaration states that we have "certain inalienable rights" which means we just have them, not that they're granted by the State. The Bill of Rights goes on to state that we can't be deprived of those rights without due process of law.
If you've been convicted, sentenced, and released on parole, your rights are still subject to being curtailed under due process. You only have the rights the State grants you at that point. Basic human rights are still in effect (they can't literally torture you), but it would be a stretch to call Pokémon Go a basic human right.
In some states the State has the right to deprive you of everything up to and including life given due process. Certainly freedom and pursuit of happiness are fair game when you're still on parole.
Corrections is an executive branch agency, so the governor can order them to do pretty much anything that isn't in direct conflict of a law passed by the legislature, a previous judicial ruling telling him he can't, or the Constitution itself.
That embarassment will make sure they hire more staff and put more money in IT funding.
You haven't worked in enterprise IT for long, have you? An embarrassment like this will make them flog their existing staff harder, insist on more metrics to measure performance, more boxes on the audit form to tick, more mandatory unpaid overtime. But little chance they'll actually spend more money on the IT cost center.
I'm not sure it counts as "insulting everyone's intelligence" when the vast majority of the audience they're playing to doesn't have the knowledge to know what they said is in any way implausible.
Ya know what? I'll take Vioxx back in a second. That shit *worked* far better than any other NSAID I've used. Knowing the risks, I willingly accepted them in exchange for the benefits.
Starting with iOS 9, there's an 8 hour timeout on TouchID. Longer than that, and you need to re-enter your passcode. TouchID won't work. (Source: http://www.macworld.com/articl...)
And of course as others have mentioned, on power up, passcode is required once. So if there's any possibility of a police interaction, crashboot your phone (hold power & home for five seconds), or shut it down normally if you have the time. Failing that, have your attorney appeal EVERYTHING to blow the 8 hour timeout away.
Also, FFS run the latest version of iOS, since this and other protections (some of which have worked in the San Bernardino case) aren't present in older releases.
There's (not a lot of...) case law that suggests a truly deadman switch that erases a device isn't considered destroying evidence. If you *do* something actively that triggers it, that's destruction and you can be charged. If by doing nothing, the device is erased, that's okay. You're also not under any obligation to mention such a thing exists.
So for example if you set something up to wipe the device if you sent a magic text message, that would be a problem. Something that wipes if you don't touch it for a week is generally considered legal. It generally goes with the idea that you can be held to consequences for your *actions*, but there's a higher bar to hold you accountable for your *inactions*.
Reasons I've *thought* about getting an Apple Watch but haven't yet:
* No camera. There are places where it's not acceptable to wave a camera around, but where the watch notification would be enough to tell you whether you need to step outside to follow up or not. Also convenient for... wait for it... checking the time without having to pull out your camera. (Crazy talk, I know)
* "Buzz" differentiation: My phone vibrates in my pocket. Was that a "cliuck ehre for freez viagrass!!" email, or something I care about. Sub-second to glance at watch, maybe a second or two to pull out phone & look. I multi-task, and people need to learn to deal with that, but I accept that glancing at a watch is perceived as less attention diversion than pulling out a phone.
* Health data: I run, and having the various heart rate, etc. data easily relayed to my phone would be nifty. Not life changing, but easier than dealing with a fitbit or similar non-ecosystem device or having to strap on a chest-based Bluetooth heart monitor. (Downside: At least last I checked, the data was NOT available realtime to Nike+ app whereas chest strap is. So it's historical data for later, not your heart rate just hit redline, time to slow down NOW).
Reasons I haven't bought one:
* I haven't had a watch tanline since 1996. Not looking to get one now.
* COST. Really tough to justify the price for the limited utility.
* The opposite of a rich interface. iOS screen-based is reasonably good. Not as useful as a keyboard for a lot of things, but "good enough" that I can remote in & save the world from my phone when I really need to. Watch doesn't add any functionality (except health data, and that's limited by delay) that the phone doesn't already do in some fashion. Tough to justify cost + extra *thing* to deal with and not get any additional capabilities for it.
I wonder how far we are from a point when patching a vulnerability (that NSA, etc. depend on) will be prosecuted as an act of war/terrorism/think of the children/whatever irrational fear we're rallying against this week.
Use one card for auto payments. Leave the card at home. Never swipe it anywhere. Never use it for any other online charges. Use another card to buy your Baconators. Problem solved.
Clearly their customers (self included) disagree. The number of co-workers I've heard complaining about the SD slot on their phones flaking out after a few months makes me content to pay a little extra for soldered on flash. I'm willing to pay for good UX.
Flash *does* come in more than one grade, interface type, speed, etc. The crap(*) they put on a $2 USB stick isn’t the same thing that’s in even a cheap smartphone. If you don’t believe there’s a difference, buy a cheap micro-SD card and a good one, then compare benchmarks. You’ll easily see 5-10x increase in throughput on the good one.
(*) And that’s even assuming you’re getting an actual 16 GB module instead of a counterfeit with 2 GB of actual flash and a controller reprogrammed to make it look like 16 GB.
Old school hot wiring wouldn't get around a computer-enforced starter or ignition inhibitor. That's the bit that's supposed to be super ultra secure on newer cars.
There's a challenge/response between the ECM in the car and the fob or a chip in the metal key itself. Without successfully completing that authentication, even the real metal key won't start keyed cars, and the Start button does nothing in keyless cars. You can't hot wire your way around that.
The laptop tricks the ECM in skipping the challenge/response or accepting a different key ID. It also most likely tricks the car into shutting off the alarm, so two for one.
Personally I draw the line at grease and/or needing tools. If I can't do it with my bare hands or get dirty in the process, it's become a hardware problem. If pulling the battery fixes it, that's not "bricked," but it's gone a bit beyond a software problem if I need a wrench and get sulfuric acid salts on my hands in the process.
Given Microsoft’s recent position on gender sensitivity kind of things (Microsoft hires danders for GDC after-party), I kind of wonder if they subscribe to the, “20 No’s and a Yes is still a Yes” cult of consent.
The source cited by your source is "the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans." IE the same people who have espoused for years that fat was the devil and we should be getting over half our daily calories from sugar & starch. Defining "low carb" as "less than the way too much we've been told to eat the entire time we've become the fattest people in history," is maybe not the best definition. I think a far more reasonable definition of low-carb is the point at which you have metobolic changes versus "normal carb" eating. Anything less than that is just changing your diet without it having a specific effect. From my experience, the benefits of being in ketois taper off above 20g/day and are pretty much gone by 40-50g tops.
Specifically that Tess at BMI 46+ is just as healthy and will experience no negative health consequences as compared to someone at BMI 20.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson are morbidly obese based on his BMI score. If I shed my fat and tone my muscles, I'll still be morbidly obese. It's not a reliable indicator.
Arnold, Sly, and Tom are are huge (or tiny...) outliers because of their height and/or muscularity. BMI doesn't work well on the edges of the human population, but it's a very reasonable indicator within average ranges of height & muscularity. It's a poor model when applied to professional athletes or the very tall or very short, but it's pretty good for everyone else. Not sure what's up with Mel, but that applies to both physical & mental condition for him...
If you're a few BMI points off your ideal range, it's certainly very possible you're fine. Arnold was supposedly BMI 33 when he was Mr. Universe, but that's still a far cry below Tess' 46. I'm not aware of any body builders or other athletes that are 40+ BMI. There may be some for extreme heavy weight lifters perhaps, but you're by definition at the outliers of normal human physique there.
If you've stopped allowing yourself to be affected by what other people think of you, good for you! That's an excellent step towards living a much happier life. Internalizing others' judgement and setting aside your own value judgements in favor of theirs leaves you vulnerable to the whim of others' emotions. You're in a much better place.
If you're trying to make choices to improve your own health because that's what you want to do, also good for you! Your own desire for change is the only thing that can motivate that. Bending to others' judgements and trying to change yourself to fit their ideal never works, at least not for long. I wish you nothing but the best in your effort. I've made the effort myself over the course of the past few years shedding about half my body weight, and it's been life changing.
That said, as others have said,150g carb/day isn't even close to low-carb. More like 20g/day would be low-carb. You'll still lose weight at 1500kcal/day, regardless of the composition of those calories; but if you're making other health decisions based on the premise that you're eating low-carb (and thus achieving both the benefits & drawbacks of doing so), you should be careful. It's unlikely your body is operating on a fat-based, low-carb metabolism at 150g/day. Again, no doubt you will drop weight at 1500kcal/day, but you're not getting the benefits of low-carb, if in fact that's what you're seeking.
There's one thing you're NOT doing though, and this is another good for you: You're not telling people that being at your current weight is a healthy thing that they should accept as good. You're not saying that there are no health drawbacks to being overweight and therefore there's no health reason that other overweight people shouldn't attempt to lose weight. That's what Tess and the rest of the Health At Every Size followers are espousing. Specifically that Tess at BMI 46+ is just as healthy and will experience no negative health consequences as compared to someone at BMI 20.
That assertion is the one thing I have against Tess & other HAES adherents. I would never tell anyone they have to feel bad because they're overweight. It's your body, and you can do what you want with it. It's entirely possible to both not hate yourself for being fat but also take steps to work towards becoming less fat. Loving yourself isn't the same thing as giving up on changing yourself.
The HAES movement is reprehensible for its claim that there are no health or other benefits to not being overweight. They serve as a collective denial and self-apology movement where members can reassure each other that a host of problems they have in life don't actually have anything to do with their weight. (Can't fit in chairs, always tired / no energy to do basic life things, can't walk up a flight of stairs, medicines don't work properly, have to take a boat load of daily prescriptions just to stay healthy, can't just walk into any store and buy XXXXXL clothing, etc. etc....). They reinforce the idea that they're "perfectly happy" being overweight and that no aspects of their life could possibly be improved if they were less overweight. They also advance the claim in many cases that's it's actually "impossible" to lose weight. With things like "set point theory" and other pseudo-science that try to claim that your weight is controlled exclusively by your genetics and that your diet and exercise levels have nothing to do with it. They insist there's just no sense trying, and they re-badge "giving up without trying," as "just being happy the way you are."
To be clear, I understand that your genetics, your upbringing, life situation, etc. can have a huge amount to do with your appetite and your activity level. I don't doubt that some are genetically predisposed to eat more, or at least to not have satiation signals that work as well. I don't doubt that it's part genetics, part addiction, and part mis-learned coping mechanisms from using eating as an emotional b
Heating oil & propane delivery trucks do it regularly. Can't count the number of times I've come around a blind corner to find an oil truck blocking half the lane just begging for someone to plow into it.
What you've said is technically correct and is right in a nation run by rule of law. In reality, it very rarely happens. Congress critters are politically minded too. They rarely interfere with judges as it hurts their own political standing.
Slashdot Mirror
Parole doesn't affect your voting rights, but many felonies will. That includes in New York. It would be part of sentencing, probably a mandatory part for certain offenses. Your voting rights are revoked before you even hit the prison gate. Only way to get them back would be to overturn the conviction through an appeal. Neither serving out your full prison term for an unconditional release nor finishing your parole period will restore voting rights once lost.
(Not stating a position for or against the above, just clarifying that parole isn't the issue for voting. Felony conviction is.)
You're only half right. The Declaration states that we have "certain inalienable rights" which means we just have them, not that they're granted by the State. The Bill of Rights goes on to state that we can't be deprived of those rights without due process of law.
If you've been convicted, sentenced, and released on parole, your rights are still subject to being curtailed under due process. You only have the rights the State grants you at that point. Basic human rights are still in effect (they can't literally torture you), but it would be a stretch to call Pokémon Go a basic human right.
In some states the State has the right to deprive you of everything up to and including life given due process. Certainly freedom and pursuit of happiness are fair game when you're still on parole.
Corrections is an executive branch agency, so the governor can order them to do pretty much anything that isn't in direct conflict of a law passed by the legislature, a previous judicial ruling telling him he can't, or the Constitution itself.
You haven't worked in enterprise IT for long, have you? An embarrassment like this will make them flog their existing staff harder, insist on more metrics to measure performance, more boxes on the audit form to tick, more mandatory unpaid overtime. But little chance they'll actually spend more money on the IT cost center.
I'm not sure it counts as "insulting everyone's intelligence" when the vast majority of the audience they're playing to doesn't have the knowledge to know what they said is in any way implausible.
"Windows has been updated! Please enter your credit card number to purchase a license for Windows 10 or press any key to power off your PC."
Ya know what? I'll take Vioxx back in a second. That shit *worked* far better than any other NSAID I've used. Knowing the risks, I willingly accepted them in exchange for the benefits.
Starting with iOS 9, there's an 8 hour timeout on TouchID. Longer than that, and you need to re-enter your passcode. TouchID won't work. (Source: http://www.macworld.com/articl...)
And of course as others have mentioned, on power up, passcode is required once. So if there's any possibility of a police interaction, crashboot your phone (hold power & home for five seconds), or shut it down normally if you have the time. Failing that, have your attorney appeal EVERYTHING to blow the 8 hour timeout away.
Also, FFS run the latest version of iOS, since this and other protections (some of which have worked in the San Bernardino case) aren't present in older releases.
There's (not a lot of...) case law that suggests a truly deadman switch that erases a device isn't considered destroying evidence. If you *do* something actively that triggers it, that's destruction and you can be charged. If by doing nothing, the device is erased, that's okay. You're also not under any obligation to mention such a thing exists.
So for example if you set something up to wipe the device if you sent a magic text message, that would be a problem. Something that wipes if you don't touch it for a week is generally considered legal. It generally goes with the idea that you can be held to consequences for your *actions*, but there's a higher bar to hold you accountable for your *inactions*.
Reasons I've *thought* about getting an Apple Watch but haven't yet:
* No camera. There are places where it's not acceptable to wave a camera around, but where the watch notification would be enough to tell you whether you need to step outside to follow up or not. Also convenient for ... wait for it... checking the time without having to pull out your camera. (Crazy talk, I know)
* "Buzz" differentiation: My phone vibrates in my pocket. Was that a "cliuck ehre for freez viagrass!!" email, or something I care about. Sub-second to glance at watch, maybe a second or two to pull out phone & look. I multi-task, and people need to learn to deal with that, but I accept that glancing at a watch is perceived as less attention diversion than pulling out a phone.
* Health data: I run, and having the various heart rate, etc. data easily relayed to my phone would be nifty. Not life changing, but easier than dealing with a fitbit or similar non-ecosystem device or having to strap on a chest-based Bluetooth heart monitor. (Downside: At least last I checked, the data was NOT available realtime to Nike+ app whereas chest strap is. So it's historical data for later, not your heart rate just hit redline, time to slow down NOW).
Reasons I haven't bought one:
* I haven't had a watch tanline since 1996. Not looking to get one now.
* COST. Really tough to justify the price for the limited utility.
* The opposite of a rich interface. iOS screen-based is reasonably good. Not as useful as a keyboard for a lot of things, but "good enough" that I can remote in & save the world from my phone when I really need to. Watch doesn't add any functionality (except health data, and that's limited by delay) that the phone doesn't already do in some fashion. Tough to justify cost + extra *thing* to deal with and not get any additional capabilities for it.
"It's not true, and we know who you are who said that. We're coming for you."
The fact you drank the kool-aid and think Flash is anything other than a problem seems to be the problem here.
I wonder how far we are from a point when patching a vulnerability (that NSA, etc. depend on) will be prosecuted as an act of war/terrorism/think of the children/whatever irrational fear we're rallying against this week.
Use one card for auto payments. Leave the card at home. Never swipe it anywhere. Never use it for any other online charges. Use another card to buy your Baconators. Problem solved.
Clearly their customers (self included) disagree. The number of co-workers I've heard complaining about the SD slot on their phones flaking out after a few months makes me content to pay a little extra for soldered on flash. I'm willing to pay for good UX.
Flash *does* come in more than one grade, interface type, speed, etc. The crap(*) they put on a $2 USB stick isn’t the same thing that’s in even a cheap smartphone. If you don’t believe there’s a difference, buy a cheap micro-SD card and a good one, then compare benchmarks. You’ll easily see 5-10x increase in throughput on the good one.
(*) And that’s even assuming you’re getting an actual 16 GB module instead of a counterfeit with 2 GB of actual flash and a controller reprogrammed to make it look like 16 GB.
Old school hot wiring wouldn't get around a computer-enforced starter or ignition inhibitor. That's the bit that's supposed to be super ultra secure on newer cars.
There's a challenge/response between the ECM in the car and the fob or a chip in the metal key itself. Without successfully completing that authentication, even the real metal key won't start keyed cars, and the Start button does nothing in keyless cars. You can't hot wire your way around that.
The laptop tricks the ECM in skipping the challenge/response or accepting a different key ID. It also most likely tricks the car into shutting off the alarm, so two for one.
More like some Wireshark ate it all.
Personally I draw the line at grease and/or needing tools. If I can't do it with my bare hands or get dirty in the process, it's become a hardware problem. If pulling the battery fixes it, that's not "bricked," but it's gone a bit beyond a software problem if I need a wrench and get sulfuric acid salts on my hands in the process.
Let's see you keep a wallet with cash in your Olympic sized Speedo while you're between races.
On second thought, no... Let's not see that. Helluva way to start a weekend...
Given Microsoft’s recent position on gender sensitivity kind of things (Microsoft hires danders for GDC after-party), I kind of wonder if they subscribe to the, “20 No’s and a Yes is still a Yes” cult of consent.
That said, as others have said,150g carb/day isn't even close to low-carb. More like 20g/day would be low-carb.
Low-carb diets are 150 grams or less per day.
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/150-carbs-per-day-still-considered-low-carb-7754.html
The source cited by your source is "the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans." IE the same people who have espoused for years that fat was the devil and we should be getting over half our daily calories from sugar & starch. Defining "low carb" as "less than the way too much we've been told to eat the entire time we've become the fattest people in history," is maybe not the best definition. I think a far more reasonable definition of low-carb is the point at which you have metobolic changes versus "normal carb" eating. Anything less than that is just changing your diet without it having a specific effect. From my experience, the benefits of being in ketois taper off above 20g/day and are pretty much gone by 40-50g tops.
Specifically that Tess at BMI 46+ is just as healthy and will experience no negative health consequences as compared to someone at BMI 20.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson are morbidly obese based on his BMI score. If I shed my fat and tone my muscles, I'll still be morbidly obese. It's not a reliable indicator.
http://www.docshop.com/2008/04/08/arnold-schwarzenegger-is-obese-problems-with-body-mass-index-bmi-calculations
Arnold, Sly, and Tom are are huge (or tiny...) outliers because of their height and/or muscularity. BMI doesn't work well on the edges of the human population, but it's a very reasonable indicator within average ranges of height & muscularity. It's a poor model when applied to professional athletes or the very tall or very short, but it's pretty good for everyone else. Not sure what's up with Mel, but that applies to both physical & mental condition for him...
If you're a few BMI points off your ideal range, it's certainly very possible you're fine. Arnold was supposedly BMI 33 when he was Mr. Universe, but that's still a far cry below Tess' 46. I'm not aware of any body builders or other athletes that are 40+ BMI. There may be some for extreme heavy weight lifters perhaps, but you're by definition at the outliers of normal human physique there.
If you've stopped allowing yourself to be affected by what other people think of you, good for you! That's an excellent step towards living a much happier life. Internalizing others' judgement and setting aside your own value judgements in favor of theirs leaves you vulnerable to the whim of others' emotions. You're in a much better place.
If you're trying to make choices to improve your own health because that's what you want to do, also good for you! Your own desire for change is the only thing that can motivate that. Bending to others' judgements and trying to change yourself to fit their ideal never works, at least not for long. I wish you nothing but the best in your effort. I've made the effort myself over the course of the past few years shedding about half my body weight, and it's been life changing.
That said, as others have said,150g carb/day isn't even close to low-carb. More like 20g/day would be low-carb. You'll still lose weight at 1500kcal/day, regardless of the composition of those calories; but if you're making other health decisions based on the premise that you're eating low-carb (and thus achieving both the benefits & drawbacks of doing so), you should be careful. It's unlikely your body is operating on a fat-based, low-carb metabolism at 150g/day. Again, no doubt you will drop weight at 1500kcal/day, but you're not getting the benefits of low-carb, if in fact that's what you're seeking.
There's one thing you're NOT doing though, and this is another good for you: You're not telling people that being at your current weight is a healthy thing that they should accept as good. You're not saying that there are no health drawbacks to being overweight and therefore there's no health reason that other overweight people shouldn't attempt to lose weight. That's what Tess and the rest of the Health At Every Size followers are espousing. Specifically that Tess at BMI 46+ is just as healthy and will experience no negative health consequences as compared to someone at BMI 20.
That assertion is the one thing I have against Tess & other HAES adherents. I would never tell anyone they have to feel bad because they're overweight. It's your body, and you can do what you want with it. It's entirely possible to both not hate yourself for being fat but also take steps to work towards becoming less fat. Loving yourself isn't the same thing as giving up on changing yourself.
The HAES movement is reprehensible for its claim that there are no health or other benefits to not being overweight. They serve as a collective denial and self-apology movement where members can reassure each other that a host of problems they have in life don't actually have anything to do with their weight. (Can't fit in chairs, always tired / no energy to do basic life things, can't walk up a flight of stairs, medicines don't work properly, have to take a boat load of daily prescriptions just to stay healthy, can't just walk into any store and buy XXXXXL clothing, etc. etc....). They reinforce the idea that they're "perfectly happy" being overweight and that no aspects of their life could possibly be improved if they were less overweight. They also advance the claim in many cases that's it's actually "impossible" to lose weight. With things like "set point theory" and other pseudo-science that try to claim that your weight is controlled exclusively by your genetics and that your diet and exercise levels have nothing to do with it. They insist there's just no sense trying, and they re-badge "giving up without trying," as "just being happy the way you are."
To be clear, I understand that your genetics, your upbringing, life situation, etc. can have a huge amount to do with your appetite and your activity level. I don't doubt that some are genetically predisposed to eat more, or at least to not have satiation signals that work as well. I don't doubt that it's part genetics, part addiction, and part mis-learned coping mechanisms from using eating as an emotional b
Don’t buy phones that are locked to the carrier’s update schedule. Spend a little more and get something you can patch on your own terms.
Perhaps you’ve heard of iOS and/or Nexus devices?
Heating oil & propane delivery trucks do it regularly. Can't count the number of times I've come around a blind corner to find an oil truck blocking half the lane just begging for someone to plow into it.
What you've said is technically correct and is right in a nation run by rule of law. In reality, it very rarely happens. Congress critters are politically minded too. They rarely interfere with judges as it hurts their own political standing.